• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

PA's lawful purpose defense to carying on K-12 school grounds may get a test soon!

Evil Ernie

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2007
Messages
779
Location
Castle Rock, Colorado, USA
imported post

Heh, funny, I graduated from Mifflinburg Class of 89. I remember fellow students bringing shotties and rifles in their cars during hunting season. It was never an issue, just kids either just getting back from an early morning hunt, or going out right after school.
Great school btw, at least back then it was.

As far as the field being on school grounds, yes it is. The only thing separating the football field and the actual school building is part of the bus driveway that leads to the rear parking lot. Also, there was a chainlink fence around the field and a gate that was closed and locked during non-school hours (nights weekends etc) unless there was some school sponsored activity such as ball games, dances, etc. The property perimeter was marked with MAHS school property signs as well.
 

no carry permit ?

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2008
Messages
180
Location
, ,
imported post

Sounds like a immature punk with ZERO judgment, that should have left when asked and saved himself a load of trouble. The auxiliary police is not a good place for this idiot. Since he was carrying concealed my guess he was purposely showing that he was armed, told someone or did something stupid.

This is a lousy test case for anything EXCEPT what not to do in the Auxiliary police academy.
 

gnbrotz

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 30, 2007
Messages
247
Location
Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, USA
imported post

insane.kangaroo wrote:
Hopefully the judge will recognize section (c) and throw out the case. :)
That will be a trial question. I would be VERY, VERY surprised for this to not easily breeze past the preliminary hearing and be scheduled for trial.
 

mjf

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2007
Messages
80
Location
, ,
imported post

Since there's no case law on "possessed for other lawful purpose", unless he gets an awesome judge, I'd say the state clearly has prima facie evidence.
 

Steve in PA

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2006
Messages
158
Location
Somewhere in PA
imported post

mjf wrote:
Since there's no case law on "possessed for other lawful purpose", unless he gets an awesome judge, I'd say the state clearly has prima facie evidence.

The burden will be on the state to prove that "possessed for other lawful purpose" does not carry over to someone with a license to carry firearms.

The person does NOT have to prove that it does.
 

Prophet

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 29, 2008
Messages
544
Location
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
imported post

If the court rules that Personal Protection is an "other Lawful purpose" in the state of Pennsylvania, does that mean that within the state we can carry firearms into Post Offices?

It clearly states that one may carry a firearm into a post office for "other lawful purposes" and since Post offices reside in the State and the state recognizes personal protection as a other lawful purpose it would lead one to reason that we could. And that if the Fed. Gov. had issue with it they would have to have an FBI agent or Fed. Marshall arrest us because in the eyes of the state we are not doing anything illegal and as such local and state cops have no ground to arrest us on.

Just throwin out some conjectures.
 

gnbrotz

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 30, 2007
Messages
247
Location
Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, USA
imported post

IMO, no. While 18 USC 930 (d) (3) exempts "other lawful purposes", 39 CFR 232.1 (l) requires that the carry of firearms (open or concealed) be for "official purposes".
 

lockman

State Researcher
Joined
Aug 19, 2006
Messages
1,193
Location
Elgin, Illinois, USA
imported post

So Police, FBI, DEA, Security guards and even Postal Inspectors can not carry into a post office to mail a personal letter.
 

TheEggman

Regular Member
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
174
Location
, Virginia, USA
imported post

gnbrotz wrote:
IMO, no. While 18 USC 930 (d) (3) exempts "other lawful purposes", 39 CFR 232.1 (l) requires that the carry of firearms (open or concealed) be for "official purposes".
Doesn't the USC trump the CFR?
 

Statkowski

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
1,141
Location
Cherry Tree (Indiana County), Pennsylvania, USA
imported post

USC states the rule, CFR explains the rule, combined they both make law. A statute (US Code) without an implementing regulation (CFR) is technically unenforceable.

18 USC 930 has implementing regulations (didn't look them up). However, 18 USC 930 may or may not apply to post offices.

39 CFR 232.1 is based on 39 USC 401, which is unrelated to 18 USC 930. The USPS attempts to pull a slicky on the general public with its 18 USC 930 signs since they only list subsections (a) and (b), but conveniently omit subsection (d) which makes an exception for "other lawful purposes."

What, you're expecting a government agency or instrumentality to be up front with you, a mere citizen?
 

Article1section23

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2006
Messages
489
Location
USA
imported post

gnbrotz wrote:
IMO, no. While 18 USC 930 (d) (3) exempts "other lawful purposes", 39 CFR 232.1 (l) requires that the carry of firearms (open or concealed) be for "official purposes".


GN, do you have a definition for "official purposes" as stated in your cite? Just wondering?

Carrying with a license from the state, makes it official, unless expressly denied and would meet this requirement.

Also, the regulation (CFR) isn't the same as the law (USC d. "3").
 
Top